It seems what he said was that the original intent of the restriction to handheld/carryable arms has to be looked at again because we now have the capability for handheld/carryable weapons with the kind of destructive capabilities that we wanted restricted, i.e. rocket/grenade launchers .

This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

vernonFL:This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!

Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.

This seems reasonable.I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?

Aren't felons prevented from owning weapons? Then how has Congress not already restricted the privileged? For your argument to be logically consistent, Congress would have to make it illegal to deny weapons to felons, Federal or state level.

doglover:vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!

Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.

According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.

When Scalia talks of the Founding Fathers he acts like they were all of one mind. The Constitution was a great compromise so I imagine the individual opinions of the signers would probably reflect a variety of opinions on most issues. Which Founding Fathers do we heed? Do we poll them perhaps through a national seance? And just who is a Founding father? If only those who wrote the Constitution then Jefferson is out. men like Thomas Paine had great influence but Paine was neither a signer of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Personally I think Scalia takes his position because he knows it's a big cop-out; hiding behind the presumed thoughts of others long dead.

Teacher: What do you want to be when you grow up Tommy?American 5 year old: Jack BauerTeacher: That's nice dear. Oh, one second.Teacher walks to principals officeTeacher: Get homeland security down here, we have another one

vernonFL:This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

Wow! If that counts, then me losing my virginity to Black Cat in jr. high TOTALLY COUNTS!! WOOHOO!!!

Corvus:According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.

Civilians can legally own explosive devices and automatic weapons but they are heavily regulated. Rocket launches, assuming we get a ruling saying they are legal to own, would almost certainly be regulated in the same way. Meaning, enthusiasts who have a lot of money will have them but they will be out of reach to most people including most criminals.

I have to admire Scalia. Anyone that can be so brazenly shameless while proudly mixing in the finer points of a prideful douchebag on a daily basis has to work at it. The amount of focus and self-discipline required is simply off the charts.

vernonFL:This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.